***Official*** New Zealand in Zimbabwe and South Africa 2015

[Fuller Pilch]

It would be interesting if we could get stats on rate of runs scored while batsman x was batting.

Some batsman are excellent at scoring leg byes (which obviously worsens their s/r and improves the bowler's e/r). Chris Harris was a great example.

Others put pressure on bowlers who then bowl wides. Runs are runs. I'd rather batsmen got 5 leg byes an over (at a s/r of 0) than 4 singles or one boundary.

 

[Dan]

Other than the fact this excludes every single and all chasing teams in any and every single ODI tying any and every single match and then being in a possible position to win it before being dimissed all out, it then it goes further downhill.

I assumed you were capable enough to recognise that I was referring to the first innings, but hey, if I have to be patronisingly specific, I guess I have to be patronisingly specific. And then I fully expect you'll complain that I'm being patronising, so it's very much damned if I do, damned if I don't.

How about I dumb it down even further? It doesn't matter how quickly you score your runs if you don't actually score any runs.

The way I think most see it is not dissimilar to the Phillips Curve -- for any given batsman, to increase their average you have the trade-off of a lower strike rate. To increase the strike rate you have the trade off of a lower average. And then, just like stagflation, you get freak occurrences like AB de Villiers who are the exceptions that prove the generalisation.



Oh btw, cut out the personal insults and this bizarre "if you disagree with me you must smoke crack" thing. You're better than that and you know it.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

A shortfall of 8 runs if there are zero extras. Which is exceptionally unlikely. 12-15 extras is more like the average, which means a win. Moreover, scoring 100 runs off the last 10 is becoming common, so 132 off 20 overs is probably an underestimate. A further point is that a Latham 60 (80) leaves a platform for KW, Taylor and Elliott to score faster as the need to preserve wickets is less of a factor (assuming Guptill goes averagely well).

I fully agree that an SR of 72 is not good enough. I also fully agree with you that SR is not taken into account anywhere near as much as it needs to be in ODI cricket. But I still think it's premature to be particularly concerned about it in Latham's case, as he isn't even a first choice player yet and hasn't had enough innings to really show what he can do.

I like the bold part of this post. But his ODI scoring slowly is a concern the more matches he plays moving forward - be it as a first choice player or otherwise.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

My philosophy is pretty simple: strike rate is meaningless if you're all out (before the 45th).

Forcing yourself to go at 8 an over in the first 10 is useless if you lose 4 wickets in doing so, because Anderson and Ronchi sure aren't batting out 40 overs from there very often.

So Dan thinks that SR is meaningless if you're all out before the 45th over.

I assumed you were capable enough to recognise that I was referring to the first innings, but hey, if I have to be patronisingly specific, I guess I have to be patronisingly specific. And then I fully expect you'll complain that I'm being patronising, so it's very much damned if I do, damned if I don't.

I do not find you patronising at all Dan, your tone of expression is overtly condescending. Oh and Dan, New Zealand and Tom Latham chased and batted second in all three ODI's, so forgive my confusion.

But Dan, please explain to me why SR in the first innings is meaningless. If a team scores 10 runs an over for 40 overs, and is dismissed, is 400 not a score to be chased in the second innings? Or 8 runs an over for 44.5 overs? Is that 358/359 score not to be chased in the second innings?

How about I dumb it down even further?

I think you may have dumbed it down too far when you said that SR does not matter in the first innings. But you agree that it matters in the second innings right?

It doesn't matter how quickly you score your runs if you don't actually score any runs.

Well if you're not scoring runs, then you cannot be scoring runs quickly. But I get your gist and agree, run scoring maximisation is the objective. But 10 runs an over for 40 overs does beat 6 runs an over for 50.

Oh btw, cut out the personal insults and this bizarre "if you disagree with me you must smoke crack" thing. You're better than that and you know it.

Are you still dumbing your post down? People want to talk about Latham striking at 80 and how that is not a problem, but thats not the scoring rate he has been going at when he's doing mid and low 70's in the two losses.

We both agree that run scoring maximization is the goal ( I say it is for the team - I will give you credit and think that you do to and not for the individual) - but SR is not meaningless in achieving that end, in either innings.

A Philips curve theory to convey the idea of a trade off between run accumulation and SR for a batsman? Okay, most people understand the idea of a possible trade off represented in a L shaped curve. AB De Villiers, analogous to stagflation? You may want to think about your analogy at this point.

Is the trade off actual or real, or just predicted (and probable for lots of batsmen)? Have batting averages fallen significantly over the last ten years against the 1970s and 80's given the batting SR have increased?

I can readily accept the concept that batsmen could lose runs off their average increasing their strike rate. The question I have is about the predicted result of the trade off (or the shape of the curve(s) for teams and players individually).

 

[Zinzan]

You really need to start watching more actual games to appreciate the nuances of different conditions players face along with the risk vs reward in approaching an ODI innings.

You write so simplistically as if all ODI conditions are the same, therefore you go aggressively from the get-go. Sometimes the new ball is the easiest & best time to score, other days it can be the most difficult time to survive. And on those occasions a team may want to conserve wickets and would do well to be 90/1 after 20 overs. You criticise Latham for his SR the other day without factoring that was an extremely difficult track to bat on. And the only reason SA got to 280 is we practically gifted them 30 runs with mis-fields and 4-5 dropped catches and on top of that, they were lucky to get away with about 4-5 french cuts for 4. On another day, they'd have struggled to make 230.

The fact remains Latham looked the 2nd best batsmen on either side in that game, only behind de Villiers imo, (I exclude Behardien who faced just 10 balls at the end) which makes it kind of stupid time to criticize his scoring rate.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Hello Zinny,

I criticise Latham for his overall SR, the losses in this series and previous matches. Not merely the last match. I appreciate that he batted faster than KW in the last match. Which was still slower than Amla, Berhadein, De Villiers, Worker, Munro and Elliot. Nevertheless, Latham had the full benefit of the opening power play overs.

Am I happy that Latham could score and not give his wicket away against the attack of Steyn and Philander? Absolutely.

Am I excited about Latham being a regular match winner in the ODI team? No. He scores too slowly at present. He needs to score more swiftly. Striking at low 70s at #2 he will lose us far more matches than he will win.

 

[Dan]

...and the full disadvantage of facing Steyn et al. with two new balls.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

...and the full disadvantage of facing Steyn et al. with two new balls.

"We lose by scoring too slowly but its okay because the opposition had good bowlers and two new balls."

 

[Dan]

Ok, so run maximisation is the aim. We agree on that.

So isn't maximising the use of the available resources (i.e. every ball available, and each batsman's respective strengths), in the extreme majority of situations, the means to run maximisation?

When you've got a lower order consisting of some combination of Worker-Munro-Ronchi-Neesham-McCullum-NcCullum, doesn't it make sense to play to their strengths of scoring at high SRs for short periods of time by back-loading the innings somewhat?

 

[Flem274*]

did you watch the game grump?

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

did you watch the game grump?

Which game? Latham has played 32 matches. Did you read my earlier reply post to Zinzan?

 

[Dan]

"We lose by scoring too slowly but its okay because the opposition had good bowlers and two new balls."

Sorry, I'm not seeing where that quote comes from.

 

[Flem274*]

Which game? Latham has played 32 matches. Did you read my earlier reply post to Zinzan?

nope

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Ok, so run maximisation is the aim. We agree on that.

So isn't maximising the use of the available resources (i.e. every ball available, and each batsman's respective strengths), in the extreme majority of situations, the means to run maximisation?

When you've got a lower order consisting of some combination of Worker-Munro-Ronchi-Neesham-McCullum-NcCullum, doesn't it make sense to play to their strengths of scoring at high SRs for short periods of time by back-loading the innings somewhat?

McCullum to move to the middle order for Latham to open? Not likely.

While there is conventional wisdom to the "death" overs, there has been a long conventional wisdom to score runs quickly at the start of the innings.

Conventional wisdom of ODI cricket run maximisation is currently being examined by more players being more attacking and playing more aggressive cricket at a far earlier stage than the typical "death overs".

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

nope

 

[kiwiviktor81]

It's an odd argument anyway because Latham will be replaced by McCullum soon and all of this will be forgotten.

...until McCullum's back goes and then someone will likely want to try and be the hitter at the top of the order. Who that will be (it won't be Guptill) is a fairly open question at this stage it seems.

 

[GGG]

I am one of the first to question Latham's place, I have also said from the start that he is not a ODI middle order batsman, he is a opener so I will ignore Latham's earlier fails. It would be nice if he scored faster but I would take 80 without loss after 15-20 overs more times than not.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

but I would take 80 without loss after 15-20 overs more times than not.

Noone is questioning Guptill or even Kane for that matter.

Would you take 80-1, 80-2, 80-3 or 80-4 with Tom still in?

 

[mr_mister]

i didn't know there was a difference between being patronising and condescending til i saw this thread. i always used the terms interchangeably

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

At least the Kiwi deconstruction of a player has moved on from Martin Guptill or posts with some racial undertones about Ross Taylor to criticising someone else. Can't complain about the freshness of the material.